This isn't the same thing, people who have big noses come from a family with big noses, it's genetic. Homosexuality occurs randomly, like many disorders or genetic diseases/mutations.

If a child was born with down syndrome, would you be against a drug which fixed this?

If someone were born with a low sperm count, or had very few fertile eggs, would you be against In Vitro firtilization?

If someone were born with a hermaphedite, would you not want to make them normal again?

Even just someone with a limp, if you were born with a deformed femur, would you be against surgury to fix this?

This isn't a matter of self improvement. Curing homosexuality isn't done for cosmetic reasons. You can live with it fine, just like a down syndrome kid, or a heterosexual with reproduction issues, or a hermaphedite, or a person with a limp can live fine. However not everyone wants to live with a disorder like that.

If you can cure obsessive compulsive disorders (which are harmful to individuals in extreme cases) then I'm all for it. It's an illness people can live with, but why not cure?

Why are you against cures? If someone had the cure for the common cold, would you throw it away?

Did you honestly say who cars about schizophenic people? Wow....wow, just honestly go work in a mental hospital for a bit, the shit these people have been theough? Their lives are worse then hell man. Wow. Yes there are side affects, but these people do not live happy lives without medication.

You just said schizophenea is acceptable, just take a read at what you're saying. Look, reading your comments I can see you might be a homosexual, so you clearly have a strong view pro-homosexuality. I don't hate gay people, and I got my degree in Astrophysics, I like to take things for the way they are. There are misconceptions about homosexuality, it was removed from the DSM-III due to political pressure and hate crimes against homosexuals, but there is no gay gene. It's not something we evolved genetically, it's not a lifestyle choice, it's not something we become (like alcoholics), it's a defect. It's something outside of the control of the individuals.

Even if you just look at wikipedia, all the sources state that homosexuality is not psycholigical and that " It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice."

We shouldn't hate people for being homosexuals, it's something they are born with, at random. You aren't say because your parents are gay, it's a random defect. This is the misconception that people have, which should be cleared up. However it's still a defect/disorder, and it's likely biological in nature instead of psychological.

As for the side effects of medications. Yes, early cures will have heavy side effects. Of the curable stands of schizophenea, some of the side effects can be extreme. However in the last 30 years they have gone from having a combination of chronic pain, insomnia, depression, nausia, vomiting, loss of appetite, and migranes to simply having a low sex drive and difficulty concentrating.

Homosexuality isn't as extreme of a disorder as schizophrenea, but even schizophrenic people aren't forced to take medication. They are only forced to take medication when their condition is either dangerous to others, or when it prevents them from living regular lives (paying rent, feeding their children, etc). Once institutionalized, people are let go once successfully treated, and unless they become dangerous again there is no community treatment order to keep them in a hospital. Homosexuals will never become dangerous, there will never be institutionalization for homosexuals who engage in homosexual behaviours (at least in North America, maybe in Muslum countries this will happen).

You can't force someone to take medication for homosexuality, it's a very minor disorder, completly livable. However individuals should be able to choose to take curing medications themselves. If even one homosexual want to get married and live a heterosexual life, it's their freedom to choose to look for a cure. You can't speak for all gay people.

Didn't say it creates it, just said that homosexuals have a higher occurance of carrying STD's, and it's due to many homosexuals practicing unsafe sex.

Bisexuals transfer STD's from the homosexual to the heterosexual environment. Or like you said, "straight" men having a gay experience.

However someone pointed out that straight black women have a higher occurance of STD's, and I've read things like that.

Nothing against gay people, but I am against homosexuality as it is a disorder. Most scientists believe that homosexuality is caused due to some biological process, which doesn't occur in most individuals. It's not a pressing matter, but I think the world would be better off with a cure (optional to take). I am also against unsafe sex.

That's it.


P.S. Cheating husbands/wives is a whole other issue. More reason why I am against unsafe sex, irregardless of it being a hetero or homosexual experience.

I skimmed through your post cuz I am in a hurry, and no I didn't say that. This is what I meant by schizoid: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder

It's people about who really don't like to go out and be social. It's nothing like being schizophrenic. 

I am also not just trying to argue, it seems that you are not against homosexuals and you just misworded your thoughts in the beginning of the discussion. Defect, disorder, normal, not normal, as long as you're not against homosexuals then you're cool lol, Have a good day :)

1. Please explain what you mean by being "against homosexuality." Because based off what you're saying, you are not against homosexuality as a whole. You are against homosexuals who practice unprotected sex, and you are against homosexuality only when it occurs in people who don't want to be homosexuality.. These people do not make up all homosexuals; they are only a subset of homosexuals. So it's silly to say you are against homosexualiy as a whole.

2. Why do you care about the reproductive ability of a small part of humanity? 

3. "Thus homosexuality is not a genetic trait, and since it's not something that people develop, and people are born gay,"

You don't know this. Scientist don't know this. Accept the fact that you don't know. Once you accept that, this can go along a lot smoother. With that said, people may not be born gay, in which case, it's probably not possible for their to be a cure.

Again, what do you mean by being "against the condition." What the hell does that even mean? Do you want all homosexuals to be forced to be straight? What? What does that mean?

Oh man, sorry about that. I didn't volunteer long at a mental health clinic, but when I was there I guess I got sensitive to the issue. A lot of people give schizophrenic people a bad stigma, like they did that to themselves on purpose, like they chose to be homeless, yelling at God, etc. However with proper treatment (for the curable stands), I've seen a lot of people who would basically be those homeless people, completly ignore by society, become fairly sucessful people. One guy even got married to a smoking wife and about as much money as the doctors treating him.

LOL, yes I used homosexuality in two difference references. In one instance the condition, in another the individual. I have nothing against the individual, being homosexual, for whatever reason, IS outside the persons control. However I do think it's a curable condition, and I don't look at it in the same way as you.

I'm against unsafe sex, but that's definatly not limited to the homo and bisexual population, so that doesn't make me against homosexuals in particular.

Gay people give good shopping advice They have a purpose in society lol

1. I'm against the condition, not the individual. It's not the individuals fault that he or she is gay, but I do think that looking for a cure would be beneficial towards society.

I am against unsafe sex, but that's not an act limited to homosexuals. I only mentioned this because I was listing reasons why homosexuality does affect non homosexuals in a negative way, and statistically homosexuals do have a higher occurance of STD's then straight people.

2. Like I said above, homosexuals themselves should have the option to be "cured" and become heterosexuals. The fact that they can't at this stage in medical advancement means that we have a condition, which negatively affects some individuals, and like every medical condition we should look for a cure.

Do you not care about homosexuals who wish to have a monogamous marriage and produce a child using their own genetic material? Do you not want people who wish to live heterosexual lives to have that choice?

3. Actually most scientists do agree that homosexuality is caused by some biological process before birth. The difference is where. Some scientists think it's a genetic mutation, so think it's an error during early stages in the uterus.

I have yet to read an article relating homosexuality to social  and psychological environment, and I'm sure if you ask any gay person, they didn't become gay. You're born this way.

By against the condition, I am looking at homosexuality as a disorder, like down syndrome. I have no problem with down syndrome people, I'm very nice to them, but I want to look for a cure. Same with homosexuality. It's a condition (illness, defect, disorder, whatever it is), which can be cured, and I think we should look for a cure to give homosexuals the option of becoming heterosexuals. Like we both agree, it's a condition which really doesn't affect the way people live in a negative or harmful way, so there is no reason to force this cure upon people, but there should be an option for those who wish to be heterosexual in order to have a family, or escape opression.

I've already answered your question about finding a gay "cure." No point in repeatedly posting it.

Then you should stop saying you're against homosexuality. It sounds much worse than saying you wish there was a cure for homosexuality - which itself still sounds pretty bad.

There's still a huge controversial Nature vs Nurture debate about homosexuality. As with many controversial debates, the majority may not be right. And if no party has proof, there's no reason to assume anyone is right just yet. You can have your own intuition and hunches, but at least acknowledges that they're just your own opinion. 

Please don't bring anthropology into discussion of genomics. Because you said "However from a genetics point of view, homosexuality is disfunctional. There is no arguement here, people are designed to reproduce sexually, if we were designed to be homosexuals, we would all have some sort of hermaphedite system in us.".

As I stated above homosexuality doesn't pervent reporuction. Am I infertile because I'm gay? Sudenly I started shooting blanks? Stop talking rubbish. As a gay person myself that has MANY gay freinds, I can asure you that you would be surprised by sheer number of them that actually reproduced (more than once if I may add). 

For those that claim that homosexuality is a "condition", "disorder", "unnatural"... or whatnot. Get off your high horse! As a "phenomenon" that is observed in nature from a simple guppy fish to mammals it's obviously very natural and common thing... And out of all the animals that inhabit this planet the only animal that has "issues" with homosexuality or homsexuals is the one that claims to be "smartest" of them all. But in end it's just one poisoned by "religious donctrine's" and their narrow minded views of nature and humanity.

1. Could you refresh what you said about your opinions? I've been discussing this matter with half a dozen people.

2. I am against homosexuality. According to scientist and psychiatrists, most beleive it's a biological defection. At some people point before people are born, maybe even before they are even complete zygotes, some mutation occurs and makes them homosexual. This is why homosexuality affects random individuals, no differently from schizophenea.

I think looking for a cure for any biological disorder is important. Homosexuallity isn't life devastating like bi polar is, nor is it life threatening like cancer, but it's something and if people want to put money into finding a cure I'm all for it.

3. You are correct, there is still a debate among nature vs. nurture. Either way there is still a cure. With a biological defect, it would be fixable by drugs and therapy. With a Psychological defect, it would also be fixable by drugs and therapy. The difference is the amount of drugs (obviously a lot more for a biological source) and the amount of therapy (more for psychological sources). Either way, why shouldn't we look for a cure for a disorder, just because it's less harmful then others?

Homo's have a right to be Hetero if it was possible, and I'm sure many would want to be.

It's not Anthropology, it's Biology. Homosexuality isn't genetic, it's a random mutation. Random mutations, like schizophrenea or homosexuality are not normal mutations, do not contribute to the fitness of a species, and overall are not what the species was designed for.

Homosexuality does prevent reproduction. If you're fertile, but do not have the means to procreate, then you can't procreate can you? This is no different from a man who has no penis (say because of an accident). Just because you got sperm in the sack doesn't mean you can procreate. Even if the guy forced himself to procreate, there is still a mental barrier which reduces reproductive success.

How is homosexuality not a disorder? Is schizophrenea not a disorder? They are both random mutations which result in abnormal behaviours in the brain.

Out of all the animals in the world, only one species has an issue with bi polar, rape, schizophrenea, etc. Just because it happens naturally, doesn't mean it's normal. Rape is natural, schizophrenea is natural, and has a biological source like homosexuality. Are you going to argue those things are normal? We should accept rape and crazy's, and not treat them?